A reliable source, the Constitution - still contains the language. You don't get to edit the Constitution.
You also don't get to ignore Article 1, Section 8, and pretend that the 2nd protects the arms of the militia.
Irrelevant. The united state supreme court ruled, in the Heller decision, that firearms ownership is unconnected, and not dependent upon militia service in order to be legal. That is the legal precedent that is set, and nothing short of a contrary ruling by the united state supreme court will change such.
True that. Examples of early gun control: -In Anglo-American law, the state may exercise extraordinary powers and even abridge basic civil liberties like the right to a trial, at moments of military emergency. The practice of impressment [confiscation of private property for public use] is, like the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, an application of the state's military power.... Of ten states that practiced the impressment of arms during the Revolution, eight appear to have permanently discontinued the practice by 1787. -Almost thirty years ago, Edmund Morgan observed that white Virginians excluded African-Americans, Indians, and indentured servants from the body politic and denied them the most fundamental of rights. In 1998, Michael Bellesiles applied this observation to the issue of gun ownership, demonstrating that most colonial jurisdictions denied these groups the right to keep weapons. - When called upon by the Continental Congress to disarm non-associators, legislatures enacted a series of measures that ordered the disarmament of those refusing to take up arms against the king. -Pennsylvania's Test Act of 1777 marks the return to voluntary allegiance as the standard of membership in the body politic. It required all white men over eighteen to swear an oath declaring allegiance to the commonwealth, abjuring all allegiance to the British monarchy, and promising to do nothing injurious to the freedom and independence of the state. The act prohibited those refusing the test from voting, holding office, serving on juries, suing, and transferring land. It also ordered them disarmed. - Maryland instituted a test oath in 1777 and barred those refusing from the basic civil liberties of voting, holding office, serving on juries, suing, and keeping arms. - North Carolina followed suit, barring non-testors from basic liberties including the keeping of arms while promising that any who relented would be "held and deemed a good subject of this state, and shall enjoy the privileges thereof." - Early American militia laws prohibited any use of guns on the day of muster unless expressly ordered by militia officers. They also required militiamen and other householders to bring their guns to the muster field twice a year so that militia officers could record which men in the community owned guns. Some colonies authorized door-to-door surveys of gun ownership. - Colonial governments expressed particular concern over the firing of guns after dark, in part because the traditional method of raising the alarm of an attack after dark involved the firing of several guns in succession. Thus, an amendment to New Hampshire's militia law prohibited the firing of guns after sunset during "time of war or watch." Connecticut and Georgia enacted similar measures. - By 1770, the shooting of guns was prohibited in the cities of Philadelphia, New York, and Boston. The colonies of Pennsylvania and New York extended this prohibition to all other towns and boroughs. Delaware also prohibited the firing of guns within built-up areas, but made an exception for "days of public rejoicing." - Rhode Island banned the placement of shooting ranges lying across a public highway. Pennsylvania banned gunfire "on or near any of the King's highways." The legislature noted, however, that the fine did not extend "to any person carrying a gun on the public highway." New Jersey also explicitly protected the carrying of guns on the highways. - Massachusetts regulated the manner of keeping arms as well as the manner of using them. As a precaution against the accidental wounding of firefighters, the state prohibited the storage of loaded guns in any house within the town of Boston. At least some of these laws, including the prohibition of storing loaded guns in Boston, provided for the confiscation of the gun as penalty. North Carolina and New Jersey both acted to prevent trespasses by hunters and to preserve their game populations by levying steep fines for abusive hunting practices. Each colony also provided that hunters without a "settled habitation" or residence in the colony would forfeit their guns. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1838978/posts
Yes, when I was 9 years old, I was Raped by the Church Athletics Coach, he was a married man with a wife and children, his son was my best freind, we were putting away the Soccer equipment and I worked really hard putting stuff away. He said, Carl, I am proud of you today, you worked really hard ! I thanked him and hugged him. Suddenly he turned on me and my innocence was blasted away forever, he destroyed my entire normal existence. Oh by the way, he hated all guns, even kids toy guns, and preached hatred of Homosexuality, Lesbians (same thing) Yet he had no problem raping a 9 year old boy ????? Cesare Beccaria said the truth Back in 1764, and it is still true today. Where is your Empirical Process now ? Care to keep insulting me too whilst you are at it Professor ???
For the 30th time..... Much of what Cesare Beccaria wrote; "On Crimes and Punishments" in 1764 still holds true today." Beccaria’s work has become the foundation on which many criminology theories use to build and expand. ************************* Essay by Cesare Beccaria, year 1764 "Often laws are promoted not by criminologists or "dispassionate students of human nature" but by passionate organisations with narrow minded goals and missions. With a desired end result of introducing legislation that suits their purpose only. One thing that is essential to any laws regarding criminal justice is that the laws be created by a "dispassionate student of human nature". Beccaria stated that many of the present laws were just "a mere tool of the passions of some, or have arisen from an accidental and temporary need." There is little doubt that the same holds true today. Laws should be enlightened, rational, logical and should be the greatest good for the greatness number. He felt that criminal laws should be formed with rational thought and not passions. On legislation; Let the laws be clear and simple, let the entire force of the nation be united in their defence, let them be intended rather to favour every individual than any particular classes of men; let the laws be feared, and the laws only. The fear of the laws is salutary, but the fear of men is a fruitful and fatal source of crimes. On the assumption of guilt; No man can be judged a criminal until he be found guilty; nor can society take from him the public protection until it have been proved that he has violated the conditions on which it was granted. What right, then, but that of power, can authorise the punishment of a citizen so long as there remains any doubt of his guilt? On oaths; Oaths are useless, because it will not make a liar tell the truth, "every judge can be my witness that no oath ever make any criminal tell the truth" On the prevention of crime; Crimes are more effectually prevented by the certainty than the severity of punishment...The more promptly and the more closely punishment follow upon the commission of a crime, the more just and useful will it be...It is better to prevent crimes than to punish them. This is the fundamental principle of good legislation. Beccaria wrote a short chapter on preventing crime because he thought that preventing crime was better than punishing them. He gave nine principles that need to be in place in order to effectively prevent crime. To prevent crime a society must; make sure laws are clear and simple, make sure that the entire nation is united in defense, laws not against classes of men, but of men, men must fear laws and nothing else, certainty of outcome of crime, member of society must have knowledge because enlightenment accompanies liberty, reward virtue, perfect education, direct the interest of the magistracy as a whole to observance rather than corruption of the laws. If these nine principles are followed there would be less of a need to follow the other principles of trial and punishments. On gun control; "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty--so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator--and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve to rather to encourage than to prevent homicides. For an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree. " _____________ References Cesare Beccaria, An Essay on Crimes and Punishments The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Cesare Beccaria
To understand the history of "gun control" you need to look at the post-Civil War case law on this. The original intent was to prevent the newly freed slaves from getting their hands on guns. Negroes and guns have been a big problem ever since. And the effort has only backfired by and large.
Read the accounts from the Lewis and Clark expedition to Oregon, where I currently reside, the only gun control in those days was not selling guns to Indians / Native Americans except for certain Treaty Guns, single shot flintlocks for hunting. The Lewis & Clark account is a snap shot of the lack of any gun control in those days of flintlocks and fowling pieces ( shotguns ) And the first American account of a practical and lethal Air gun, that was to be kept secret from Indians. The only gun control in those days was British King George that did not want a Colonial Revolt. There really was no America prior to 1776. Stick to British history. You are better at it, Even though you deny a Gun Culture, the shoots at Bisley with Queen Victoria firing the opening shot, British inspired shooting competitions. Truth is, the Victorian era was totally a Gun Culture.
You are an out and out Lier. Plain and simple, howsoever, I know American History, and can prove you wrong, In 1875, during the Victorian Era, even England did not have Gun control. There were no licenses and you could carry concealed, no problem. In America, 1875, the Cowboy era, you could carry concealed or open, there was no difference, the first stirrings of gun control were the bans on firearms in Dodge City, and other Cattle towns when flocks of bored Cowboys would roll in wanting Prostitots, Liquor, get drunk, then shoot up the Towns. Before 1875,, there was no Gun control other than not selling Guns or Whiskey to Slaves or Indians. Thomas Jefferson was a Gun Nut and would never had tolerated any form of Gun control soon after kicking out the British, nobody in their right mind would countenance Gun Control. After the isolated Dodge City bans, in 1875, the next and real Gun control began in New York City, 1911 and the Infamous "Sullivan Law" to keep Irish men from having Guns. Chicago started a gun licensing scheme during the Roaring 1920's machine Guns were not regulated, however, during Prohibition, Practically every Criminal under Al Capone had a Gun license. America started to have practiced Gun Control in major Cities after the 1920s and 1930 saw the regulations on machine guns and short barreled shotguns as a response to the Gangster era and Bonny and Clyde the Infamous Bank Robbers.... Ma Barker and many others. America only had gun control after prohibition.
Right, you are not interested. Then you lie and say Gun Control has always existed in America Just stay in England / U.K. Where you need special permission to make a poopy. Cameras cover every London street, and hundreds get coshed daily, so k, as long as no Guns are used.. Sure...
You wish. Your just jealous you can't have any guns. Get bent. And FYI, I have lived all over the World, and know more about World History than you do. And furthermore, you can Re-Write British History, but you will NEVER re-wite American History,
Why would I wish Americans to be ignorant of their own history? Its a little inconvenient. You're coming across as a little childish here. I can own guns whenever I want. I choose not to. Always found hunting to be alien (unless you're poor and you have to poach) There are only two reasons why Americans fail to appreciate that they've always had gun control. They are ignorant of their history, or they are victims of the "them liberals are trying to grab our guns and ignore the constitution" pressure groups who deliberately portray gun control as a recent phenomenon. Hansard sums up the British position: "Debates in Parliament made it clear that the Government accepted that there was indeed a right to keep arms but their view was that the Constitution allowed for qualification of that right for a limited period and in specific areas". The 1689 Bill of Rights advertises that selectivity: "Subjects which are Protestants may have Armes for their defence Suitable to their Condition and as allowed by Law". The naive typically assume gun control is a recent phenomena as the vocabulary is relatively recent. That isn't at all true. For example, Winkler neatly refers to the 1328 Statute of Northampton: "no Man great nor small" was permitted "to come before the King's Justices, or other of the King's Ministers...with Force and Arms" or to "ride armed by Night nor by Day, in Fairs, Markets"
By the by, there were no guns in 1328, the Arms of that era were long bows and swords and spears and blunt force impact weapons and Artillery consisting of catapults that hurled boulders covered with pitch / tar and set on fire prior to launch.
Being in a militia is not a prerequisite or requirement for owning a gun. Having the right to keep and bear arms has many uses and one of those uses is being part of the militia.
The united states is not a developed, first world nation. Therefore firearm-related restrictions will not work within it.
And yet there is nothing on the part of yourself to demonstrate that the claim is factually incorrect.
